Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm min 1975/09/10 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA September 10, 1975 A regular meeting of the City Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Chandler, Rudolph, Floto, Pressutti, Smith and Starr. Also present: Director of Planning Peterson, Current Planning Supervisor Lee; Assistant Direc- tor of Public Works Lippitt, Assistant City Attorney Beam, and Secretary Mapes. Chairman Chandler led the pledge of allegiance to the flag, followed by silent prayer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Starr-Smith) The minutes of the meeting of August 27, 1975 be approved as written. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Chairman called for oral communications and none were presented. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Consideration of request for deferral of public improvements in alley between First Avenue and Minot Avenue, north of E Street - Warren Harding 2. Consideration of request for extension of conditional use permit PCC-74-21 for operation of borrow pit, Melrose Avenue and Main Street - American Building Arts 3. Consideration of boundaries of annexation of City owned property at 1-805 and H Street 4. Consideration of revised Precise Plan for R-3-G-P lot in 100 block of Orange Avenue - Celia Seligson Current Planning Supervisor Lee advised that with reference to item 4, a report was received from the Fire Department relating to the requirement for fire hydrants and water flow subsequent to the writing of the staff report to the Commission. The applicant was advised of those requirements and raised no objection. MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) The consent calendar be approved in accordance with the recommendations and conditions contained in the staff report to the Commission. 5. Consideration of Precise Plan for Southern California First National Bank facility at the northeast corner of Third Avenue and Palomar Street Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of two parcels zoned C-C-P, -2- September 10, 1975 fronting on Palomar Street just south of the entrance to the Handyman store. A Southern California First National Bank is located one-half block south of this location and this proposed facility would increase the capacity of that bank by providing six drive-thru stations. Ilo inside banking or walk-up window would be provided at this facility. Mr. Lee called attention to the rendering of the proposed elevations and advised that one view indicates a series of lights along the front of the bank at the roof line; the staff recommends elimination of these lights. Directional signs are proposed which meet the ordinance regulations. Mr. Lee noted the three conditions included in the recommendation for approval, and an additional condition requested by the Safety Commission to prohibit park- ing on Palomar Street due to the close proximity of the curb cuts and driveways. Mr. Lee acknowledged a protest filed by the Environmental Control Commission on the grounds that this facility caters to the further use of the automobile. He suggested that this concern should be addressed during General Plan review and not on an individual project which does conform to the zoning of the property. The staff recommends adoption of the Negative Declaration on the project and approval of the precise plan. Commissioner Starr questioned the reason for requiring the one-hour firewall construction on this structure. Mr. Lee advised that this was requested by the - Building Inspection Department and was included as a matter of information to the applicant as a requirement of the Uniform Building Code. Commissioner Pressutti recommended the addition of a condition to prohibit park- ing on Palomar Street between the driveways as suggested by the Safety Commission. Commissioner Smith recommended deletion of the condition requiring the one-hour firewall construction since that could be handled by the Building Department if it is necessary to meet code requirements. Lyndon Holsom, representing the Southern California First National Bank, passed around a picture to the Commission illustrating the effect of the proposed lights. He advised these are low intensity lights. Mr. Peterson agreed that the lights do not look offensive in the picture but felt there is some question as to whether such lights constitute a sign, and since the lights are not an essential part of the banking operation he would recommend that the architecture be approved ~ithout the exposed light bulbs. Commissioner Starr spoke in support of approving the lights, commenting on the pleasant appearance of a similar bank on Shelter Island. MSUC (Pressutti-Floto) The Commission finds that this project would not have any possible significant impact on the environment and certifies that the Negative Declaration was issued in conformance with CEQA, 1970, as amended. MSUC (Pressutti-Rudolph) A condition of approval be added to those in the staff report to prohibit parking on Palomar Street between the entrance and exit driveways. -3- September 10, 1975 It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Starr that the precise plan for Southern California First National Bank drive-thru facility be approved subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report with the exception that condition No. 2 relating to one hour construction be deleted and with the addition of the condition relating to no parking on Palomar. It was moved by Commissioner Rudolph that the motion be amended to require the deletion of lights at the front roof line. The motion for amendment died for lack of a second. The original motion carried unanimously. 6. Consideration of architectural compatibilitS with Civic Center Design Control District, Park West Apartments, Center Street and Garrett Avenue - C. P. Kiffe Director of Planning Peterson noted that the site of the proposed apartment complex is within the Civic Center Design Control District so the Commission's role is to review the architectural treatment for its harmony and compatibility with the architecture of the Civic Center. It was the opinion of the staff that the building elevation as proposed to face Center Street would meet the requirements of the design ordinance, although it was felt that too many elements were used in the design. The staff prepared an alternate sketch in an attempt to simplify the design features. The staff strongly recommended that whichever elevation is used, the theme should be carried out on 811 four sides of each of the buildings since the development is visible from Center Street to the north, from the City Park on the south, from Fourth Avenue to the west, and the Third Avenue Redevelopment Area on the east. Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that the EIR adopted for the project included a restaurant and higher density for the residential development. Mr. Peterson confirmed that plans for a restaurant are not included with this proposal and while this proposal is at a lower density, the applicant has indicated he may submit revised plans at a higher density. Due to the uncertainty of such revision it is felt appropriate to take action on the plans as submitted for this meeting. Although not a public hearing, the Chairman asked the applicant for any comments he wished to make. Mr. C. P. Kiffe expressed his concurrence with the revised elevations as prepared by the Planning Department and affirmed that the architectural treatment would be carried on all sides of the development. He concurred with the conditions as recommended, with the exception of the requirement for planting trees close to the building. MSUC (Floto-Pressutti) Approval of the architecture for Park West Apartments as shown on Exhibit C and in accordance with the conditions recommended by the staff. -4- September 10, 1975 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-75-13 - Request to reduce lot frontage from 60' to 24' and lot depth from 110' to 72.5', E Street and Toson Lane - Joseph Bush and r~ichael Bush Current Planning Supervisor Lee noted the location of the parcel, almost one acre in size, which is proposed to be divided into residential lots. The easterly lot would have only 24 feet of frontage on Toyon Lane from which access would be obtained. The lot has frontage on E Street, but access is not possible due to the topography. The westerly lot has an average depth of 72 feet versus the llO feet stipulated by ordinance. An Initial Study conduced by the Environmental Review Committee on August 28, 1975 concluded there would be no detrimental effects from this proposed division and development of property. Mr. Lee pointed out that the realignment of E street in 1963 resulted in the irregular shape and steep slope on a portion of this parcel of land, which limits the development to two home sites, with approval of a variance, as compared to the typical yield of 4 to 4½ units to the acre on level property. Mr. Lee acknowledged the receipt of a petition opposing the granting of a variance, which contained 7 signatures representing the owners of 5 properties in the area. He reviewed the six conditions recommended by staff for granting approval of the variance. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Joseph Bush, owner of the property, expressed his desire to develop this vacant property with attractive residential units that would be compatible with the area. He indicated a sewer line would be installed to serve this property and would be available for other hook-ups if people so desired. Roger Hedgecock of the law firm of Higgs, Fletcher and Mack, representing the protestors to the variance, pointed out that the petition of protest represents all immediately adjacent and surrounding homeowners. He reported that the basis for their objection is that the actual usable portion of the parcel is very small. lie contended that dividing the property would result in two very substandard lots and urged that the variance be denied and the property be developed as one home building site. Wiley Huffman, resident on Toyon Lane, contended that the plat displayed does not reflect the true condition of Toyon Lane, which is not developed as an 80 ft. wide road. He was of the opinion the city had considered reducing this from an 80 ft. wide to a 40 ft. wide street and felt such a plan should be pursued. He also asked what effect the sewer line would have on existing properties. He suggested that additional time be taken to make the Commission aware of the condition of the existing street. Mr. Peterson explained that the plat map prepared for Commission viewing sho~s the limits of the existing right of ~ay and not pavement conditions. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Starr expressed understanding of the opponents' view in trying to retain large open space, but felt that a hardship relating to the property has been demonstrated and granting the variance is within the parameters of the zoning ordinance. -5- September lO, 1975 MSUC (Starr-Pressutti) The Commission finds that the project under the variance PCV-75-13 would not have any possible significant impact on the environment and certifies the Negative Declaration. MSUC (Starr-Rudolph) The Commission approves variance application PCV-75-13 based on the findings set forth in the staff report and subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance PCV-75-14 - Request for freestanding monument sign in shopping center at Otas Lakes Road and Gotham Street - International Dairs Queen, Inc. Director of Planning Peterson advised that at the present time the ordinance allows one freestanding sign in a neighborhood shopping center. This center has two signs which were there before the ordinance was adopted. The proposed appli- cation is for a third sign. Approval of a variance for a freestanding sign requires a finding of hardship based on the difficulty of identifying the business wi th wall signs. He noted that this proposed restaurant will be located close to Otay Lakes Road as compared with other businesses in the center, and wall signs on the building would be readily visible from the street. He advised that the staff had not found that a hardship exists in this case and that granting a variance for an additional sign at this center would constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by others in the center. Denial of the application is therefore recommended. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. John Hanning, representing International Dairy Queen, pointed out that this shopping center is not fully developed to the extent that one sign is used to identify the center. He requested that they be granted approval for a sign until such time as the center is completed, at which time it would be taken down,and the shopping center sign used for identification of their business. He asserted that a low profile, ground monument sign, placed in front of the building would be more attractive than a sign attached to the building. Commissioner Rudolph asked if there would be no signs on the building if the variance were approved. Mr. Hanning indicated they would ask only for a small logo on tile front of the building. Commissioner Starr commented that a freestanding sign recently approved for a Dairy Queen establishment on H Street was supposed to be for the name only, but there are now signs reading "Hamburgers" on both the pole sign and the side of the building. Mr. Hanning reported that is a franchise operation whereas the one under considera- tion will be a corporate controlled store. He indicated he would, nevertheless, attempt to get the hamburger signs removed. Norman Hensley, 944 Wayne Avenue, resident of one of the homes to the east and above this shopping center site, reported that they would not be happy to see any additional lighting even for a temporary sign. He asked that the variance be denied. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. -6- September 10, 1975 Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that this is in the neighborhood commercial zone and that zone was set up to be compatible with residential use and therefore has high restrictions for signs. She indicated she could find no hardship for granting the requested variance. Commissioner Pressutti commented that while the low monument sign with suitable landscaping might be more aesthetically pleasing than a similar sign placed on the building, he was not sure the Commission had the right to authorize it. Commissioner Starr expressed concern about the setting, since other stores set further back on this site would probably request the same thing. MSUC (Rudolph-Starr) Variance application PCV-75-14 for a freestanding sign be denied based on the findings as stated in the staff report. Chairman Chandler advised the applicant of his right of appeal of this decision to the City Council wi thin 10 days. 9. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont.): Adding "P" Precise Plan Modifying District to various properties at interchanges of I-5 and Palomar, L Street, H Street and E Street - City initiated Consideration of adding "P" Precise Plan Modifying District to an additional 6.66 acres south of the northbound offramp of - I-5 and L Street - City initiated Director of Planning Peterson advised that this rezoning action was initiated at the request of the City Council who expressed concern about land use at the freeway interchanges in terms of traffic control and aesthetic appearance at the entrances to the city. This hearing was set to consider applying the "P" Modi'fy- ing District to a portion of four of those interchanges. The only significant change in the zoning is the additional procedural steps required to obtain ap- proval of a development under this district. Mr. Peterson reported that the staff did explore in some depth the issue'!raised at the previous hearing on this proposed rezoning as to the possibility of adopt- ing an interchange policy rather than applying the "P" District to the individual properties. While this may seem a simpler method, it was pointed out in the staff report that the interchanges vary greatly as to adjacent land use, street capacity, and parcel configurations. For that reason such a policy would have to be very detailed, and would not be as well known to property owners, developers, and City personnel as the standard technique of the "P" District. Mr. Peterson noted that at the suggestion of the Commission additional properties at the interchange of I-5 and L Street were considered and included in this report. Chairman Chandler opened the continued public hearing. Mrs. Trusty, an owner of property at Palomar Street and Frontage Road, objected to the application of the "P" District since there are three property owners in that area and she felt it would be impossible to reach agreement on a single -7- September 10, 1975 plan for development of the property. She pointed out that one parcel is al- ready developed with a Shell service station and it would be easy for them to object to additional development. Mr. Peterson advised that as long as the Shell station continues in operation they would not be in a position to hold any authority over development of the remainder of the property. Chris Neils, attorney with Gray, Cary, Ames and Frye, attorneys for the estate of Ruth Palmer, which includes the 7½ acres at I-5 and E Street, spoke of the liability against this property as the result of estate and inheritance taxes. Payment of those taxes required a loan of nearly $300,000 and the estate cannot close until that loan has been paid. It is the owner's desire to sell a por- tion of the property in order to pay the loan, and the requirement for a pre- cise plan for the entire property places a burden on the sale of a portion of the property. Mr. Neils also contended that placing the "P" District requirements on this parcel is discriminatory since other properties in this area have not had this requirement imposed on them. He asked that their property be excluded from the "P" District rezoning. Commissioner Smith asked whether a large area in the "P" District would require a precise plan for the entire area at one time. Mr. Peterson advised that a detailed precise plan could be submitted on a por- tion of the property and at the same time a schematic plan submitted for the balance of the property for development at a later time. Assistant City Attorney Beam suggested that since it is apparently the owner's desire to sell certain portions of the property and not to develop the entire area at this time, it might be appropriate to change the second criteria pro- posed for this property to read, "Prior to development or redevelopment of the property, a precise plan shall be filed, and considered in the precise plan for a portion of the property would be the requirement of coordination between the parcels currently established or established at some future time by a parcel map." M% Peterson agreed that it is not the staff's intent to require a precise plan in detail for the entire property unless it is to be developed at one time. He suggested that paragraph 5 (b) in the report relating to this property be changed to read: "Prior to development or redevelopment of the property, a precise plan shall be prepared on the first phase of development with skeletal plans drawn for later phases of development in accordance with the provisions of the 'P' Modifying District." Commissioner Smith questioned whether this entire parcel must be in one zone. He felt the property has greater depth than is required for development control at an entrance to the city. Mr. Beam advised that property lines are traditionally zone boundaries and unless there is some other potential line nearer to the street frontage, the entire par- cel should be included. -8- September 10, 1975 Commissioner Rudolph expressed the belief that such an arbitrary boundary ~ould cause more problems and complications for the property ouner. Mr. Beam suggested that the Commission delete requirement (b) and the Planning Director could bring it up at the Council hearing on this proposed rezoning. Mr. Peterson expressed the feeling this is a cumbersome item and should not be made more so at the Council level by considering recommendations or conditions which the Commission has not acted upon. The meeting recessed at 9:25 p.m. and was reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Robert Carlin, speaking with regard to the 3.75 acres at the southeast quadrant of I-5 and L Street raised objection to the following conditions recommended in the staff report: (1) The application of the "P" zone designation to the entire 3.75 acre parcel. (2) The limitation on the number of drive~,~ays. (3) The confiscation of access rights to L Street. (4) The limitation of the type of signs to be permitted. (5) Abolishing the right to have a billboard on the property. ~ith regard to applying the "P" District to the entire 3.75 acre parcel, he contended this is an unnecessary burden since the property is about 50% developed at the present time, and is discriminatory unless all other developed properties at all gateways to the city are included in the Precise Plan District. Mr. Carlin felt it is unnecessary to make an issue of access to L Street since it is probable that a request for such a curb cut would never be made. He con- tended it is premature to require the abolishment of the billboard sign and that Chula Vista should wait until the matter is fully adjudicated, in order to pass an ordinance on sounder legal grounds. Responding to his objections, Mr. Peterson advised that the billboard on the property is illegal under the existing ordinance; the abatement period has expired, and the City is presently in court on abatement proceedings on a number of billboards. With regard to the request that the "P" District be applied only to the undeveloped portion of the property, since the property is under one ownership it is logical to include the entire property even though the northern portion is presently developed. James Yamate, owner of 3 parcels south of L Street on the north and south sides of Moss Street, raised a question about the guideline which provided that if all three parcels are developed in a consolidated fashion, the improvement of Moss Street may be waived and the street vacated, inquiring as to whether "in a consolidate fashion" means one development. Mr. Peterson advised that it does not have to be one development, but could be done in phases, so long as it is a consolidated plan. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. -9- September 10, 1975 MSUC (Rudolph-Floto) The Commission finds that the zoning and rezoning of various properties located at the interchanges of I-5 with Palomar, L Street H Street, and E Street will not have any possible significant impact on the environment and certifies that the Negative Declarations on IS-75-44, IS-75-45, IS-75-46, and IS-75-48 were prepared in conformance with CEQA, 1970, as amended. MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) Recommend that the City Council approve the rezoning of PCZ-75-F(1) of 4 parcels located at I-5 and Palomar Street as shown on Exhibit A, from C-T to C-T-P with future development subject to a precise plan conforming to the criteria stated in the staff report. MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) Recommend that the City Council approve PCZ-75-F(2 a) on a 1.95 acre parcel and the adjoining 2.29 acres of city right-of-way, north of L Street, east of I-5, from unzoned and R-2 and R-3, to I-L-P, with develop- ment subject to a precise plan conforming to the criteria stated in the staff report. MSC (Rudolph-Floto) Recommend to the City Council the rezoning of PCZ-75-F(2 b) on a 3.75 acre site, consisting of two parcels, south of L Street, from I-L to I-L-P, with development subject to a precise plan conforming to the criteria stated in the staff report. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Rudolph, Floto, Starr, Chandler and Pressutti NOES: Commissioner Smith MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) Recommend to the City Council the rezoning of PCZ-75-F(2c) on 6.71 acres, consisting of 3 parcels lying south of northbound offramp, from ! to I-P, with development subject to submission of a precise plan conforming to the guidelines recommended in the staff report. MSUC (Rudolph-Pressutti) Recommend to the City Council the rezoning of PCZ-75-F(2 d) on 1.95 acres at the southwest quadrant of I-5 and L Street, from I to I-P, with development subject to approval of a precise plan conforming to the guidelines recommended in the staff report. MSUC (Floto-Rudolph) Recommend to the City Council the rezoning of PCZ-75-F(3), of two parcels north of H Street and west of Colorado Avenue, from C-V to C-V-P, subject to approval of a precise plan conforming to the criteria recommended in the staff report. MS (Rudolph-Pressutti) Recommend to the City Council the rezoning, PCZ-75-F(4), for 7½ acres of property together with l½ acres of railroad right-of-way, from C-V to C-V-P, with development subject to an approved precise plan conforming to the criteria recommended in the staff report with the exception that guideline (b) be revised to read: "Prior to development or redevelopment of the property, a precise plan shall be prepared on the first phase of development with skeletal plans drawn for later phases of development in accordance with the provisions of the 'P' Modifying District." The motion failed to carry by the following vote: -10- September 10, 1975 AYES: Commissioners Rudolph, Pressutti and Chandler NOES: Commissioners, Smith, Starr and Floto It was moved by Commissioner Rudolph, seconded by Commissioner Smith, that PCZ-75-F(4) for 7½ acres north of E Street, be referred to staff for further study and conference with the owner relative to applying the "P" Modifying District. Commissioner Pressutti moved that the motion be amended to also include the area south of E Street. There was no second to the motion and after some discussion the motion for the amendment was withdrawn by Commissioner Pres- sutti. The motion offered by Commissioner Rudolph was approved by unanimous vote. Mr. Lee asked for some clarification of the purpose of meeting with the owner since the staff has already met and conferred with him. Commissioner Smith advised this would be an attempt to determine which portions of the property the owner would be willing to have in the Precise Plan District; in other words, attempt to draw boundaries for applying this zone change. MSUC (Smith-Starr) The staff be directed to consider and report on the advisability of applying the "P" Modifying District to the property south of E Street, between Woodlawn Avenue and the freeway, and to the C-V zoned property on both sides of H Street, east of the freeway. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Current Planning Supervisor Lee reported that at the study session scheduled for September 17th at 5:00 p.m., with dinner at 7:00, Mr. Williams will discuss the refinement of the CPO Transit Plan, and possibly Paul Desrochers will discuss more thoroughly the procedure and function of the redevelopment plan. Mr. Lee informed the Commission of the resignation of Commissioner Rice due to pressing personal matters. He also reported that Commissioner Floto has in- dicated he has a conflict which will preclude his attendance at meetings on Wednesday nights and asked for the consensus of the Commission with regard to changing the meeting dates to Thursday. Commissioner Pressutti advised that since the school board of the high school dis- trict meets on Thursday evening and there may be occasions when he is required to attend that meeting it would present a conflict. He also indicated that school activities occur more frequently toward the end of the week and he would therefore prefer an even}ng earlier in the week. Commissioner Rudolph pointed out that League of California Cities dinner meetings are held on Thursday evening. Commissioner Starr advised that he has registered for a class on Thursday evening but that could be postponed. Commissioner Smith asked for the time schedule that would be followed if meetings were to be held on Monday night. Mr. Lee advised that the report would be -ll- September 10, 1975 delivered to the Commissioners on Thursday preceding the meeting and the field trip would be changed to Friday afternoon if the Commission is interested in continuing the field trips. MSUC (Pressutti-Chandler) The Commission meetings be changed to Monday nights. It was noted that the next regular business meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 24th, since public hearings have already been scheduled for that date. COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairman Chandler expressed the opinion that Commissioner Rice would be greatly missed by the Planning Commission and suggested that the staff be directed to write an appropriate letter to Mr. Rice in recognition of his years of service on the Commission. Mr. Lee suggested it would be appropriate to invite Mr. Rice to the dinner fol- lowing the study session next week. The Commission concurred. Commissioner Smith asked that it be made a matter of record that the engineering survey which he had indicated he made on the property on Toyon Lane had no connection with Mr. Bush's proposal for development or request for variance; it was done at an earlier date for another client. Chairman Chandler advised that election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Commission for the ensuing year has been postponed since July awaiting the attendance of the full Commission at a meeting. He suggested this be taken care of. MSUC (Pressutti-Floto) The present Chairman and Vice-Chairman be retained for another year. Commissioners Chandler and Rudolph abstained from voting. Commissioner Starr commented on the legal technicalities involved in making motions, including the environmental impact, and asked the staff if all juris- dictions follow this procedure. Mr. Lee advised it had been discussed with the City Attorney's office and the Attorneys have indicated the necessity to follow prudent legal procedure with each motion. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Chandler adjourned the meeting at 10:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen Mapes Secretary